Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. It was, thus, challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Election Commission of India that the writ petitions were filed by Sri. P.J. Joseph as well as one Sri. Kuriakose P.C alleged to be a State Committee member.

3. The learned single Judge, on assimilation of the factual and legal circumstances, found that the order passed by the Election Commission of India, had taken into account the legal, and factual circumstances available on record, and did follow the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in its judgments in Sadiq Ali and another v. the Election Commission of India, New Delhi and others [AIR 1972 SC 187], All Party Hill Leaders' Conference, Shillong v. Captain W.A. Sangma and others [(1977) 4 SCC 161], A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai and others [(1984) 2 SCC 656], Kanhiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi and others [AIR 1986 SC 111], Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission of India [(2008) 14 SCC 318] and others specifically referred to, and hence held as follows:

43. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the afore judgments of the Apex Court were delivered prior to the amendment incorporating Section 29-A in the Representation of the People Act, 1951 with effect from 15.03.1989 and therefore those judgments cannot be applied as such, once the power of the Election Commission to register political parties under the Symbols Order, 1968 is taken away.

44. It is to be noted that even after insertion of Section 29-A in the year 1988, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment in Subramanian Swamy (supra) quoted Sadiq Ali (supra) with approval in which judgment it was held that in case of split, the Commission has been authorised to determine which of the rival groups or sections is the party which was entitled to symbol.

72. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the contention advanced that the removal of paragraph 3 by the Election Commission of India consequent to introduction of Section 29A in the Act, 1951 has any adverse consequence, dilution or divesting of power conferred on the Election Commission of India under paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order, 1968, in the matter of deciding the issue in regard to a party as contemplated thereunder. This is more so since the Honourable Apex Court had occasion to consider the power enjoyed by the Election Commission under paragraph 15 after removal of paragraph 3 in Subramanian Swamy, Edapaddi K. Palaniswami and Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhakom (supra) and since the learned single Judge has taken note of the judgments so rendered by the Apex Court, we are not venturing to reiterate the findings rendered by the learned single Judge in that regard. Moreover, these aspects were not canvassed before the primary authority in its real intrinsic worth, and even though an issue in that regard was raised by the party respondents, we proceeded to lay down the law, to have a quietus to the questions raised, and such a decision was sought for by the appellants.